PT PT Discussion of future SW Content (Locked) - Discussion Moved to Saga Board

I don't bash GL, I criticize aspects of his movies, and some of his decisions regarding the OOT. There's a difference. I agree it's cruel to demonize GL as a person, but with regards to his movies all bets are off, as long as it's civil discourse. Like I said, he's entitled to his opinion, and I'm entitled to mine.

 

To clarify, that wasn't directly at you. More so an answer I just see brought up whenever there's someone trying to justify every crude remark.

 

DrDre

I'm not going to re-quote everything you wrote...

Once again you are putting words in my mouth in order to make your point and now defend your narrative. I said in my eyes they are capable of doing it, that doesn't equate to me saying they are doing it, nor does Rogue One being shot digitally remove that capability.

I am capable of driving a car, if I choose not too, it doesn't remove that capability!

Disney is capable of forcing their directors to use one medium over the other, just because they choose not too for R1, doesn't remove that capability.

Than there is the issue of capable as pertaining to a mindset or motive, which I believe from a mindset and motive standpoint, Disney is capable of thinking they want their directors to use film as a marketing ploy. We have seen them use the old school retro marketing already...so yes in my eyes they are capable of continuing that mindset for marketing purposes. Just because it didn't happen with R1, once again, doesn't remove capability! It doesn't disprove capability.

Now let me say this again... I made it a point to be known that I did not know if it was going on because I did not have enough information to make a decision either way! I said I had no clue what the directors preferred! I said I didn't follow this aspect of the movies! My point was that if it was happening, it wouldnt surprise me because I felt that they are capable of doing it, both from a control aspect and a motive for marketing aspect! Because in my eyes we have seen Disney make decisions not only for marketing but actually creatively in TFA to manipulate the fandom via nostalgia! What you call conspiracy I call just common sense that a huge mega-corp who spends billions on marketing and brand image is capable of forcing the people that work for them to do what they want. Even if they don't always choose too!

Last year Disney threatened to fire the actors that portrayed the characters in their parks if the actors divulged to the outside world what characters they played. Reason? Because if little Johnny or Susie found out that the princess or prince they just met were not real, well little Johnny and Susie wouldn't want to come back to Disney or buy Disney products or watch Disney shows....

Marketing and brand image...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.th...-disney-world-actors-identities?client=safari

Disney is capable because they have the means, the motive, and the mentality! Just because they haven't done it, doesn't mean they aren't capable.

My disdain for Disney goes beyond anything Star Wars! Disney is the embodiment of a mega-corp that controls huge swaths of news, entertainment and information.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_Disney

In my eyes, no company should have that much control over what the public sees and hears. Does that mean I think they are using their power to influence the news and information people see and here? I don't know if they are or not, but, I believe they are capable of doing it. Just because they haven't done it, doesn't mean they still aren't capable. That's not conspiracy theory, that's a reality that when people and companies have that much power, it usually isn't a good thing.

Before you want to continue to paint me with a broad brush of being some crazy conspiracy theorists that does nothing but talk bad about Disney...

While I myself am very weary about Disney, my wife and kids love Disney. So much so that we went to Disney World in 2015 and are going back in 2017. I refuse to deny my kids something that brings them joy because of my viewpoint. However there is a relevant point here. Because of my experience at Disney World I was able to actually defend Disney last year in one of the threads that talked about whether Disney was ignoring the prequels or not. I was able to relate to everyone that Disney World had an abundance of PT related decor and characters. Queen Amidala, Zam Wessel, Jango, Maul, Clones, etc etc were all there for kids (ahem and some adults, Zam was particularly... interesting) to meet and interact with. My conclusion was that while I believed that Disney was moving the PT to the back burner, unnecessarily, and that they were obviously pandering to OT die hard with the TFA marketing, they weren't distancing themselves from the PT as a whole. IMO anyway.

 

Please read the entirety of what I wrote, instead of cherry-picking. First, I used a clue word "seems" which indicates an impression, a point of view. I am not asserting a fact, but my opinion. Your knee-jerk defense is the kind of thing I am not interested in... a prioritization of the man over the work. But if you'd have read the rest of what I wrote, you'd see I pointed out that SOMETIMES ignoring (or simply not seeking) outside advice and opinions can lead to greatness, but that IMO, collaboration and the tension of boundaries more typically results in great movies.

Yeah, I'm an R&D engineer with an advanced degree. I know what advanced mean. My point was that not every "advancement" (please notice the sarcastic quotes) represents an improvement in the end product. I have first hand experience of this. But I appreciate the attempt at snark... really kicks things off in the right direction.

THX1138 is a good movie. Visually, it's remarkable. But intellectually, it's not earth shaking and doesn't break any new ground. I suggest reading Orwell's 1984. Or even Huxley's Brave New World. Those guys WERE breaking new ground.

uhhh.... yeah. No one ever thought of THAT idea before. Sorry. Nothing new there. Did I enjoy the movies? Yes I did (mostly), but I wasn't exposed to any deep ideas or new kinds of thinking or perspective. HOWEVER, let me say that I think that probably some folks got their first exposure to these ideas through the PT and that is not a bad thing.

Of course I know what I'm saying. Every human has a limits to their talents and abilities. Generally speaking, we do best when we recognize our limits and work with people whose talents compliment their own. Sorry, but Lucas is a not a great writer, especially when it comes to dialog. And he is not a great director, when it comes to working with actors ("Faster! More Intense!"). He IS a great producer. And he has a talent for overall vision. This is all my opinion, of course.

So, here is something we can seem to agree on. See, I get that. No, it's not only you. Obviously, a LOT of people love Pollack's work, and I understand what he was doing with his work. But it does not connect with me at all.

 

mikeximus

Now you are putting words into my mouth. I never said you are a crazy conspiracy theorist.

Just because they didn't do it, doesn't mean they aren't capable. What does that mean exactly? I'm probably capable of killing someone, if the circumstances force me to do so, or if they hurt a loved one. I'm capable of learning to speak Japanese. I'm capable of dressing like a baby. Yet, none of these things are likely to happen. Being capable has no moral implication, unless you expect someone to act on that capability within a reasonable time frame. Being capable is also used to denote someone is physically able, but given as you yourself have stated, you are at least in part referring to mentality (or perhaps morality, or demeanor), your example of being capable of driving a car, even if you choose not to, isn't particulary relevant to the discussion.

You say Disney is capable, because they have the means, the motive, and the mentality. I disagree with this assessment, because the fact that they didn't force Gareth Edwards to use film for Rogue One, to me reveals something about their mentality, with respect to the directors they hire for the job, and the medium they use to do it. It shows, they are apparently free to use their medium of choice. There is not a single shred of evidence pointing the other way, outside of innuendo. So, to me this points to them having the motive and the means, but not the mentality. So, if motive, means, and mentality are what defines capability in the moral sense, they are therefore not capable of forcing their directors of using a medium against their will.

Just to be clear. If I say Pete is capable of killing someone for a couple of bucks to pay of his debts, I'm not giving him a character reference. I'm saying Pete is dangerous. Yet, if I then learn, that Pete had the opportunity to take a thousand dollars, but he didn't, the logical conclusion would be, that I misjudged Pete in this respect. I might still think Pete is no good for a host of other reasons, but I would no longer think he was capable of killing someone for a couple of bucks, if he leaves a thousand dollars lying on the table.

So, you may dislike Disney for many reasons, but being capable of forcing their directors to use a specific medium for marketing reasons? I think there's enough evidence to the contrary.

 

That's probably true of movies they produce directly. Let alone those made by their subsidiary studios, where they're well known for being quite "hands off". As Lucas himself pointed out.
Lucasfilm under Disney have so far made 3 movies & announced their filming technique for the 4th. That's four movies & 3 different choices: 35mm film, Digital, 35mm film & 65mm film.

& you're right, saying someone is "capable" of doing something almost always means you think there's a strong chance that they'll do it. If not it becomes merely a functional term. Which in the context of this conversation would be quite pointless.

 

I'll say this... generally speaking, Disney knows how to manage a brand. I think Disney DOES have the idea that they want a fairly specific look and feel for the saga films. This is the "core" of Star Wars, and while they will want to give their directors latitude in how they make the films, they will certainly want them to feel "of a piece." That makes sense. I suspect they'll allow a little more leeway for the anthology films, at least after they see if they can be commercially successful outside the context of the saga films. If they make money, I think they would be wise to allow a little variation in look, feel, theme, time period, etc. Not everyone will like every take an anthology film presents, but they have a chance to offer a broad pallet of stuff to watch. They've done that with the Marvel films, for example. I'm not into Thor very much, but I really enjoyed Dr. Strange, for example.

 

Boy, some of these PT fans who are discussing the production of future SW really seem to hate the PT. And talking about future SW.

I guess the PT was really THAT traumatic that some of you have to derail every thread with a constant loop of the same old criticisms. I really hope you guys heal, and aren't triggered by these movies in the future.

And can y'all shut the **** up about film vs digital? Here's the most important difference: $$$

Film is expensive as hell, digital is practically free. There, settled. Artistic merit? Only pretentious *******s who don't know anything about film have these types of arguments. Stop.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Is there not any 'digital vs. film' thread that you can move a big part this discussion to?

 

Agreed. I said that a couple of pages back but it fell on dear ears. Glad that the future SW movies are sparing no expense.

 

Except...

The odd one out is "Rogue One".

Two things notably set it apart:

i) It is the first spin-off/non-saga movie from Disney under the "Star Wars" name.

ii) Unlike the saga entries, J.J. Abrams is not an Executive Producer.

Those factors are important. Especially the second.


The "retro"/"tangible"/"practical" mandate seems to come largely from Abrams. Or, put it this way, he seems absolutely fine to run with and enforce it as a studio/artistic norm.

http://www.cbr.com/j-j-abrams-to-ex...star-wars-films-talks-lightsaber-controversy/



From the above link, watch him breezily run with the practical effects propaganda that absolutely dominated the marking campaign for "The Force Awakens":

J.J. Abrams at the VES Awards in February 2015:




Time Index: 2:46

Interviewer: You are obviously doing Episode VII and Rian is doing VIII and IX (writing). Are you involved at all in VIII and IX and the spinoffs, are you executive producing, is it now your baby?

Abrams: I wouldn't say that VIII and IX are my baby. Rian will be working at least on VIII. But I'm executive producing those films, yeah.

(Notice that Abrams quickly sidestepped "and the spinoffs". He's obviously focusing exclusively on the saga installments.)


Time Index: 3:47

Interviewer: Obviously visual effects are a key part of Star Wars. But also the practical effects of the original movies is what people love. Can you talk about balancing the new visual effects that exist with practical effects that everyone came to love?

Abrams: I feel like the beauty of this age of filmmaking is that there are more tools at your disposal. But it doesn't meant that any of these new tools are automatically the right tools. And there are a lot of situations where we went very much went 'old school' and, in fact, used CG more to remove things than to add things. Having said that, there are obviously an enormous amount of CG effects in the film and I can't wait for you to see the combination. But it was very important that we build as many sets as we could and that the film have a tangible, sort of authentic quality, that you believed these things were actually happening, in a real space with real sunlight if there was an exterior scene, or if we could build a big portion of a scene and not have anything be bluescreen, do it where we could, you know, it was a very important piece of work.

(Reads just like a press release to me.)


Now, you mean to tell me, having listened to or read through Abrams saying all of that, combined with things like the following:



Kathleen Kennedy at Celebration Europe in July 2013:

http://sciencefiction.com/2013/07/29/kathleen-kennedy-discusses-star-wars-episode-vii-developments/


“It’s a conversation we’re having all the time in the development of ‘Episode VII.’ Looking at all the Star Wars movies and getting a feel for what even some of the early films did, combining real locations and special effects – that’s something we’re looking very seriously at. So we’re going to find some very cool locations that we’re going to use in support of ‘Episode VII.’ And I think we’re probably going to end up using every single tool in the toolbox to create the look of these movies.”

“It’s using model makers; it’s using real droids; it’s taking advantage of artwork that you actually can touch and feel. And we want to do that in combination with CG effects. We figure that’s what will make it real.”




Star Wars Celebration 2015 in April:


Time Index: 17:45


Presenter: So one of the things that's been noted about this film is--Star Wars has always pushed the boundaries of visual effects, but--you're kind of taking a 'retro' approach this time around. You built a lot of practical sets...

(loud cheering)

Presenter: I hear people like that.

Abrams: That's an awesome reaction. I will say that when we started talking about actually what the story would be and how to make it happen, the thing that struck me...

(picture of Abrams and Kennedy inside the 'practical' cockpit of the Millennium Falcon flashes up to more approval)

Abrams: When we were working on pre-production of the movie, the thing that struck me, and it wouldn't get out of my head, is just how real you knew and felt Star Wars was when you first saw 'A New Hope'. And that feeling of actually being in--whether, you know, they were shooting in Tunisia, or on various, you know, various physical, tangible sets, you couldn't deny it. And I knew, look, it's Star Wars, right? There are gonna be an endless number of effects that will be done CG and otherwise--of course. But we needed a standard. And we needed to set a standard that was real, that felt like you, you know, you knew the people were in those places, the way the light interacts with the set, you want it to be legitimate, you want it to be authentic. And so building as much as we possibly could was really the mandate. And I will tell you the really amazing thing is--as we're working now, of course, finishing up the edit of the film--even before ILM gets started doing their spectacular work, it's an amazing thing to actually be able to watch the movie and you can see what it is, you don't need to use your imagination because we actually had those sets there, and it was great for the actors, too.




Star Wars: The Force Awakens - Comic-Con 2015 Reel from July:




0:37

Mark Hamill lulls us in and sets the scene (the tangible, practical scene):

Hamill: Real sets. Practical effects. You've been here but you don't know this story. Nothing's changed, really. I mean, everything's changed, but nothing's changed. That's the way you want it to be, really. To think the way the technology has evolved--and yet keeping one foot in the pre-digital world.

(close-up on a film camera out in a desert with cogs and gears exposed and starting up and the sound of film running through the camera)

(VERY SUBTLE OF YOU, DISNEY)

A deluge of practical effects propaganda rolls across the screen and the dogma of tangibility and practical-is-better continues.

1:46

Another series stalwart reassures us:

Peter Mayhew: Getting back to the old days. The old ways of doing things.

Then straight after production designer Rick Carter flatly asserts:

1:51

Rick Carter: JJ's trying to make sure *these* movies have a physicality to them. We truly are out in a desert, a *real* desert.

More practical effects propaganda continues to pile in and the reel ends, not all that subtly, by actors making statements that, situated in the reel itself, rather obviously equate practical effects with love and care, and, by extension, superior filmmaking (leaving the "shadow" self of practical, that nasty digital nonsense, as the unspoken "Dark Side" of the filmmaking force that will not be mentioned).




From the Star Wars: The Force Awakens Comic-Con Panel in July 2015:



Time Index: 6:49

Abrams: When we first started shooting the movie, we did this video that went out, where I was--we were on (sic) Abu Dhabi and I was standing there and there was a creature in the scene and some people were searching (sic), 'Oh, great, you made creatures', and other people thought, 'Oh, it's a CG thing', and we wanted to show you it wasn't CG, and this is just one of many characters, so we actually brought this character we call 'Bobba Joe' as a nickname, so let's, shall we bring 'Bobba Joe' out, see what happens?

(endless waffling on about how much more "real, authentic, touching, and emotional" this clumsy, plodding, dire mixture of plastic and latex is over the pitiful, disgusting shame of using CG to design characters and populate worlds...)

13:35

Kasdan: When we talk about delight, we were talking about something as simple as the texture of a wall, the fact that a person casts a shadow, a creature casts a shadow as he comes through the room (nice link back, Larry), that you can feel that those are real weapons and those are real stormtroopers back there.




And a month before the Comic Con adventure, there was this puff piece by Vanity Fair in June 2015:

http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2015/05/star-wars-the-force-awakens-vanity-fair-cover

According to Lawrence Kasdan, the Lucasfilm story group was already in agreement with Abrams that the movies should be closer in spirit to the original trilogy than to the prequels. “There was a feeling,” Kasdan said, “even I think when George was still there, that we wanted to have more of a slightly retro feeling—more tactile and less C.G.-oriented.”




Not to mention this hilarious video which collects various "practical effects"-speak (as if this were some grand Orwellian brainwashing machine):




(Are they actually all lemmings? Aside from John Knoll. Check out his rebellious response!)



Please........



Try and tell me with a straight face that the use of film -- an outdated image-capture technology -- has somehow been chosen accidentally, or purely at the discretion of the individual filmmakers, three times in a row, for high-budget fantasy movies, with J.J. Abrams as an executive producer, after all the practical/tangible/authentic/real catechisms from the last three years; which Rian Johnson himself has previously given his assent to (2014) and recently recapitulated the dogma a second time, somewhat apologetically, on his Twitter account (2016).



The intent is clearly to give the sequel trilogy a different feel to the prequels. To distance it from them. Deliberately. To reassure diehards that Disney are capable of eclipsing Lucas in methodology and outcome any day of the week. And that we should all be perfectly happy and not given to question anything. Because practical = real; and real = better. Everyone knows that. After all, if there's one thing that Star Wars taught the world, it's always better to remain on the farm, and live among practical sand grains and real sunsets, forever.

 

I'm sorry to say this, but I really think you're seeing these interviews through some very prejudiced goggles. What I see is a filmmaker, who obviously has a lot of nostalgia for the old school way of doing things, but at the same time continually emphasizes how he wants to combine the best of both worlds:

- there are obviously an enormous amount of CG effects in the film
- And we want to do that in combination with CG effects.
- There are gonna be an endless number of effects that will be done CG
- even before ILM gets started doing their spectacular work

There are many people, filmmakers, fans and non-fans alike, who like practical effects, to whom a real desert looks more real, than one created solely in a computer. Is it strange, after Lucas went mostly CG, that many have nostalgia for the old way of doing things? I don't think so. Should Disney ignore this, because Lucas had a fetish for CG, or because it may hurt some PT fan's feelings to strive for a different balance between practical and CG? At the same time most recognize the great advancements, that were made with CG, largly due to Lucas and ILM. I see strengths and weaknesses in both the purely practical, and the purely CG approach, and evidently so did JJ and the producers of TFA.

Lucas spent a lot of time telling everyone, how practical effects in the old days limited his vision, so he used, what he believed was the best available technology to achieve his vision, and try to make it as real as possible. I don't see how recognizing now, having witnessed the CG revolution, that CG may not be the be all and end all of special effects work, is somehow so bad, or a damning critique of the PT. CG has advanced since then, and so have practical effects. Why wouldn't someone, who likes both approaches (and JJ has used a lot of CG in his films), try to find the optimal balance. I commend him for it.

Also, consider the fact, that the PT wasn't the only film series criticized for it's extensive use of CG. Peter Jackson was similarly criticized for abandoning what many viewed as the perfect balance of practical and CG in his LOTR trilogy, in favour of the mostly CG Hobbit trilogy. So, the PT does not stand alone. Many people simply don't like the over reliance of big blockbusters on CG, hence the strive for a better balance.

To summarize, I don't see JJ's remarks about how there's going to be an endless number of CG effects as a damning critique against the OT, nor do I see the use of real locations, and practical effects as a damning critique of the PT.

I don't care about the 3 out of 4 argument, as one film shot digitally is enough to convince me, there's no company wide ban on digital.

You may say film is an outdated image-capture technology, something which many film buffs will disagree with, but many filmmakers prefer it over digital for various reasons. In 2015 64 films were shot on 35mm:

http://filmmakermagazine.com/97320-64-films-released-in-2015-shot-on-35mm/#.WCs8pfnhCUk

"The tally of ~64 doesn’t reflect the total number of productions being shot on celluloid, period: 16mm is still semi-common, and 2015’s highest-profile release on film, The Hateful Eight, drew attention for its opening week, 70mm-only wide-ish release."

Four of the year’s top 10 U.S. domestic grossers were 35mm, as such TFA is hardly the exception. So, Star Wars is just one of many titles by a film maker among many film makers who prefer film over digital. Good for him...

 

That's something to ponder on, after all it's partially what made SW the phenomenon it is today. Will future SW movies ever push technical boundaries again? Or will it become just another generic movie series among many others?
Personally, I like the mixture of genre in SW, that's what separate it from other movies.

 

IMO TFA did push technical boundaries. They just didn't make such a hoohay out of it. I don't think, I've ever seen such a seemless blend of practical and CG, and I hope that many will follow suit. To me Rogue One seems to be taking it to the next level, as the trailer alone features some of the best cinematography, and CG I've ever seen in any Star Wars film.

 

There were some nice visuals but overall I can't say I was in awe before it, it felt pretty generic. Pacing didn't really help to immerse myself into it honestly. Maybe I'll change my mind once VIII and IX show some world building, can't say TFA made much effort in that department.

 

I have! Like 17 years ago.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I doubt anything will ever surpass RotS in terms of magnificent visuals and epic story.

 

All the planets in TFA was new ones even if most of the scenario itself was nothing new* beside the taiga on Starkiller base. What we have seen of Rogue One we will see some more brown-beige desert but also some southern see island which is nice and new.
* (brown-beige desert; green forestlands)

What would people like to see in the coming movies? Should we return to some already existing planets (which ones would you like to see?) or move to some new ones? If we are presented with some new ones what kind of environments or environmental variations would people like to see?

 

I'd like to see some new cities. I love places like Theed, Mos Espa, Tipoca City, Cloud City, Coruscant. There was a very interesting looking city in TFA, but it was blown up before we even got a chance to see it. I hope we'll get something interesting out of that Dubrovnik shoot for Episode 8. That settlement from Rogue One also looks promising, but what I'm really looking forward to are bigger and/or more populous places.

 

Cryogenic Epic post my friend.

 

Well, i would like if the upcoming movies would feature underwater segments in some way, love the underwater part of Naboo, and i think having a first order controlled water planet could lead to some very interesting battle scenes underwater. TCW did feature a huge water war in season 4, but i think it could look really neat in live action

Love this concept art for TFA



If we´re returning to a planet we've seen before, why not Tatooine? We haven't seen that obscure planet for a while maybe Kashyyyk? I love the look of Kashyyyk from episode 3, and they could even re-introduce life day from the amazing holiday special . Either Kashyyyk or Courscant, i would love to see ST era Coruscant.

Seeing new droids of different types would also be cool.

 

Well, see, it isn't just J.J. Abrams and Kathleen Kennedy that have come out with those statements or related utterances. Indeed, my purpose in introducing that broad range of quotes and sources was to show how J.J. Abrams, Kathleen Kennedy, Lawrence Kasdan, Mark Hamill, Peter Mayhew, TFA production designer Rick Carter, and all the leads -- Daisy Ridley, John Boyega, and Oscar Isaac -- have all, all of them, on some level, spewed the same dogma, the same bantha-load; even "Chosen One" Rian Johnson. The message that "practical rules" was pounded in and pounded in and pounded in, to the point of surreality, by having a whole panoply of production personnel, both in front and behind the camera, old faces and new, Baby Boomers and Millennials, all spreading the Holy Message of their Dear Leader and the Righteous Way of The Mouse.

Everyone got in on the act. And, more than that, the emphasis placed on the way TFA had, allegedly, been crafted took precedence over anyone being in any hurry whatsoever to talk about story, themes, characters, locations, the style of direction, tone, intent -- little things like that. Not to say they didn't talk about things here and there. There's no way you can really spend a whole hour talking non-stop about practical effects on a panel, for instance, when the whole cast is sat there, looking groomed and glamourous, and eager to embrace the crowd and lavish them with anecdotes and other assorted errata about their time making THE BEST MOTION PICTURE EVENT OF ALL TIME . But the "practical" angle went through everything, like a virus, as if Disney weren't just selling a movie but running a political campaign. "Blood and soil" is an acknowledged ideological construct of fascist (demagogic) movements; and the "blood and soil" of Star Wars, under this Disney campaign, was clearly a pseudo-equivalent: practical effects, real locations; the blood and soil of "good" movie-making under the prevalent dogma; blood and soil "tangibles" made up of cognate tangibles; the blood and soil (or blood and sweat) of artisans and devoted pyramid builders of the Glorious Post-Lucas Star Wars Dream.

This went way, way beyond a filmmaker or producer having a particular preference for a particular approach. The wantonness of it is exposed by the scale of it; not to mention the sophistry of the remarks themselves. For example, Kathleen Kennedy's early assertion in 2013 that they would be using "every single tool in the toolbox" is darn peculiar and thoroughly disingenuous, given that Lucas did exactly that on all six of the former films. It's a direct slap in his face and all that he passed onto them; not least because she specifically references the "early films" just after benignly alluding to the full set (a sneaky rhetorical sleight-of-hand: pretending to be ecumenical but not really), suggesting there was something unique to their photochemical alchemy that they were trying to recapture (i.e., not the prequels). In the "Comic-Con" footage, J.J. Abrams even says that they treated "Four, Five, and Six" as "canon" -- again, by way of tacit omission, thereby demoting the prequels to an inferior status. Subtle yet obvious putdowns and smearing; from the people entrusted with Lucas' filmic legacy! It's a sort of sick proof that love and hate are like the "yin-yang" symbol; forever intertwining. And every political campaign, every religious movement, has an "out" group that it concentrates a lot of energy upon in a protracted, multi-hued dance of denigration and slander: some sort of ink-blot heresy to motivate the masses; an unfortunate clumping of renegade elements that "shouldn't" exist but always, of course, both pathetically (to the votary) and usefully (to the politicians and priests) does.

Make no mistake, as a "business" affair, it's blindingly obvious what Disney went and did; and are still in the process of doing.

Nah, I won't consider that because I don't have to. It factors in, but only tangentially. In fact, had "The Hobbit" been executed in much the same way that LOTR was, or -- gosh, never, but... -- the way the original trilogy was, can you imagine them toning the "practical" malarkey down? They'd have gone at it with just as much zeal; and probably a lot more. Dissatisfaction toward other CG-heavy movies was clearly exploited in a peripheral sense, but the true object of scorn in the campaign, the real fulcrum, was the prequels, only the prequels, and nothing but the prequels.

Sixty-four titles isn't that many. Hundreds of films are released every year. Digital has almost completely taken over. And that wasn't my point. I even said that film can be an appropriate choice in some contexts. However, with Lucas having already taken Star Wars forward, into a digital realm, for Disney to then start pushing "practical-this", "practical-that", and announcing three different filmmakers for the saga entries, all of whom would be shooting their movies on celluloid, well, forgive me....... that, to me, suggests the stench of a scheme rooted more in marketing prudence than artistic scruple.

And yes, saga films. As I outlined before, "Rogue One" is an aberration. Obviously, there is no "company wide ban" on digital. Why would there be? Digital is here, has been here a while, and most Disney features now employ it. But for Star Wars -- for episodic "Skywalker" Star Wars -- they have clearly gone "old school"; in willful reverse of the direction Lucas took the saga in and the filmmaking philosophy that drove him to experiment and push boundaries. The workings of fate are unspeakably odd; the world seems to be careening down a sinkhole of atavisms right now. Hooked on the metaphysical glow of space wizard movies and the outsized declarations of cantankerous property moguls circa 1983.

 

A waterworld of some kind sound interesting and it would be nice if we saw Kashyyyk again.

If we see another desert planet again do I hope it is a new one that don't resemble the once we have seen. Maybe a cold desert, like the Gobi or one in different colour (blue, purple, pink etc.).

 

STAR WARS Rogue One SPOILER Merch Pics! Part 95

 

Except as Dre said, 4 of this years 10 most successful movies were shot on film. Your attempts at painting Lucasfilm as using some outdated antiquated medium are unconvincing.

Ah yes, going digital & making more & more of supposedly live-action movies animated is "pushing technical boundaries". Honestly you guys could teach Disney's marketing department a thing or two about spin. It wasn't pushing boundaries to continually reduce the amount of location shooting in the PT until there was none in the final film. Just like it's pretentious codswallop for PT fans to say that using film is "regressive" when they'd admit they couldn't tell the difference between TPM shot on film & the other prequels shot digitally. What everyone does notice however as the PT progresses are more & more blatantly animated characters & animated environments. In a live-action movie that is what's regressive. Just like digital over film, it's the quicker, easier & cheaper path.

After filmmakers like GL went overboard with CGI as the shiny new film-making toy of the 2000's, what "pushing boundaries" means now is swinging back towards practical methods. Combining them with digital effects. To create worlds that look as seamless & as tangible as possible. Not just a colorful bunch of pixels rendered on a computer. "Pyrotechnics" as Liam Neeson called it in AotC. In terms of visual effects, the most lauded & acclaimed movie in the last few years was Fury Road. That's bcs it combined amazing practical effects & stuntwork with CGI. Was it "regressive" to film the movie this way? They could've made the whole thing on green sound-stages after all. Why shoot on location & build all of those crazy vehicles? Other directors (not naming names) would've shot that movie entirely with green screen backgrounds. Which of those two approaches is regressive? All of the plaudits, acclaim & awards suggest it's that balance of practical effects, location shooting & digital work that's at the cutting edge of film-making today. It's exactly the philosophy that TFA was made with & also seemingly Rogue One.

Fact is SW under Lucas was tracking away from being live-action movies & towards quasi-animated films like Sin City or 300. Where the whole movie is filmed on green screen soundstages with more & more digital elements. As confirmed by Ewan McGregor:

"There were less & less (actors) as we went along. I don't know if they didn't like me or what...but as we went along I had less & less people to work with. By the third one they sent me off...off I went on my own & I spent 3 months in a green stage."

To me that's regressive. It's pushing boundaries in completely the wrong direction.